You've Messed With The Wrong muslims

25th January 2014

Lesbians and gays beware - muslims just don't like you.

But will they stand up against them? No, they would rather support them, for other more sinister reasons.


These dramatic images show three Muslim siblings attempting to kidnap and rob their sister's lesbian lover after they found out about the relationship.


Sarah Harrison, 35, was targeted as she left work in Blackburn, Lancashire. As she was attacked, one of the siblings shouted: 'you've messed with the wrong Muslims.'

The women's sister Nazma Ditta, 27, one of six sisters and three brothers, had been due to enter into an arranged marriage.

But Nazma had begun a secret relationship with Miss Harrison when both women worked at a clothes shop in the town.


Miss Harrison was confronted by sisters Atfah Ditta, 32, and Ghazala Ditta, 31, who got out of a parked silver Toyota Corolla car on June 20 last year.


They were joined by another sister Nighat Morris, 38, and brother Tahmoor Ditta, 26, who produced a metal tool which he brandished at a work colleague of Miss Harrison.


The three women then assaulted Miss Harrison who was dragged around by her hair and kicked as they tried to force her into the car.

But Judge Graham Knowles QC said: 'This is a case about power and contol. It is about striking terror and attempting to control not just the body but the will. This was a group ambush and you struck with the terror that all of you intended.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545464/Youve-messed-wrong-Muslims-CCTV-images-dramatic-moment-three-women-tried-kidnap-rob-sisters-lesbian-lover-row-arranged-marriage.html#ixzz2rMu0YDzX
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

OK, don't think anybody thought it was a secret that devout Muslims (much like devout Christians) like gays and lesbians. But I must hear more about these "other, more sinister reasons." I love a good conspiracy theory, they're hilarious!

I used to work with three Muslims, at Westminster council car clamping, at the time of the first gulf war. (brief stint)

Now....They were a bit off with me, when they first found out that i was gay.

After a while though, they were fine!....No probs at all!

They actually applauded me for being honest tbf...Where the second in command was an ex lover   ...And he was still in the closet!

....That was soooooo funny!

    

Yep, you really just can't stereotype people, can you? It sucks to do that, anyway -- then you shut off the possibility of people surprising you.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Yep, you really just can't stereotype people, can you? It sucks to do that, anyway -- then you shut off the possibility of people surprising you.

They aren't always strict Muslims either...For the most part two were, but the other one used to sneak off to the pub, at lunchtime for a quick drambuie!   

He was so funny as well!

The office comedian, the other two used to get a bit pissed off with him though!

....There was a Spanish guy there (very good looking)....He used to cook bacon in the kitchen during Ramadan...It was a very small office, it was taken as banter.

...The office manager...He was very RW.

He used to make the sound of cruise missiles, hitting their targets!

It was all taken in jest in those days, i would readily admit.

I must admit...That i outed my ex partner during that time...Only because he was saying that i should stay in the closet though!

..Thinking..

Were you bullied for being gay there?

Nope.

Were the Muslims bullied for being Muslims there?

Yep.

...Time of the first gulf war....Very wrong though, thinking deeply back.

Reminds me of when I was in university and the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed. It was, of course, bombed by extremist right-wing white Christians from a Republican state, but in the immediate aftermath, most people leapt to the conclusion that it was Muslim terrorists.

A friend of mine was deeply offended -- she's a Christian Palestinian whose parents immigrated to the U.S. before she was born. I think it opened her eyes a bit.

Also...In that office, there was a very sweet Italian girl...She was going out with a black boy and her parents were very against the relationship.

He used to come in to see her, they were a very sweet couple....I used to talk to her quite a lot.

....When i used to get a bit star struck...It was in Charing Cross Road...Like when some cute neighbours actor used to come in, i used to get her to take over!

Ben_Reilly wrote:Reminds me of when I was in university and the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed. It was, of course, bombed by extremist right-wing white Christians from a Republican state, but in the immediate aftermath, most people leapt to the conclusion that it was Muslim terrorists.

A friend of mine was deeply offended -- she's a Christian Palestinian whose parents immigrated to the U.S. before she was born. I think it opened her eyes a bit.

Mc Vey?

Multiculturalism works.

How can you even begin to understand each other, unless you've spent time together.

Yes, along with Terry Nichols, his co-conspirator. Totally agree about multiculturalism, and I think what you learn growing up in such a society is that all of the differences people make such a huge deal of are really petty compared to our similarities.

Catman wrote:Multiculturalism works.

How can you even begin to understand each other, unless you've spent time together.

Well, that is precisely the point isn't it, it does work when people are prepared to get together, it has worked in this country for many years way before Labour took it on board and used it to bludgeon any opposition. Many cities and especially ports
had very diverse areas where people from all over the world worked, lived and socialised together, that last one being the operative word, usually without political or social intervention from the state, its a bit different now though where in some cases we have enclaves of various nationalities/religions/ideologies sticking together and not going out and meeting the natives as such. They were all just people who happened to be whatever ethnic group they were, now the ethnic group and its rights are the most important item.

How many countries have broken apart in civil war because they have been forced together?

Britain's multicultural society was working nicely, we were gently getting along - 30 years ago we were beginning to work together.

Then Blair forced millions on us in a matter of a few years - forced - that's the problem.

BigAndy9 wrote:How many countries have broken apart in civil war because they have been forced together?

Britain's multicultural society was working nicely, we were gently getting along - 30 years ago we were beginning to work together.

Then Blair forced millions on us in a matter of a few years - forced - that's the problem.

Yes please do tell on civil wars?

Am all ears to this view

You do understand that America had mass immigration in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, did a civil war happen because of this Andy?


I think you need to look closer at why Civil wars do happen

America had millions come to their shores over a few hundred years, America has the land to absorb them.we had more than a million over a few years into a much smaller land.

nicko wrote:America had millions come to their shores over a few hundred years, America has the land to absorb them.we had more than a million over a few years into a much smaller land.

No America had mass immigration in the late 19th century and early 20th century Nicko, far more than we have ever had and most congregated in cities, so much so that in1900 the third biggest city with Germans living in it was actually outside Germany and was New York

There's rather a difference where you have mass immigration of people with similar customs and beliefs into a country which is relatively new and still developing its society where most people are also relative newcomers and mass immigration of very different customs and beliefs into an established society of many hundreds of years, its a lot harder to intergrate into a society very much anchored in a culture established centuries ago which is naturally is still evolving along the same cultural lines, people moving to that situation really need to understand that, if you move somewhere 'young' its easier to adapt and fit in with mainly other newcomers from different backgrounds. Most everyone in the US is relatively new in the scheme of things except perhaps for the decendants of people who arrived on the Mayflower and I believe such decent is still quite a prize in some circles. There's also the problem of divided loyalties and I don't mean who you should support in a cricket match between Pakistan and England or the USA or Ireland at a rugby match. I may be wrong but I get the impression that when people decided to emigrate to the USA they did so wholeheartedly and became Americans in fact and in spirit and don't you have to swear that you will defend the United States against all comers and not to fight with anyone against the United States? I think that just might concentrate your mind a bit and is a fairly obvious oath to have to take when you are building a new nation from others. We don't have that kind of oath in the UK I don't think, so probably mistakenly take it for granted that old or new citizens will do the first and not the last, sadly some of our newcomers are not doing the first but are doing the second quite enthusiastically.

Vintage wrote:There's rather a difference where you have mass immigration of people with similar customs and beliefs into a country which is relatively new and still developing its society where most people are also relative newcomers and mass immigration of very different customs and beliefs into an established society of many hundreds of years, its a lot harder to intergrate into a society very much anchored in a culture established centuries ago which is naturally is still evolving along the same cultural lines, people moving to that situation really need to understand that, if you move somewhere 'young' its easier to adapt and fit in with mainly other newcomers from different backgrounds. Most everyone in the US is relatively new in the scheme of things except perhaps for the decendants of people who arrived on the Mayflower and I believe such decent is still quite a prize in some circles. There's also the problem of divided loyalties and I don't mean who you should support in a cricket match between Pakistan and England or the USA or Ireland at a rugby match. I may be wrong but I get the impression that when people decided to emigrate to the USA they did so wholeheartedly and became Americans in fact and in spirit and don't you have to swear that you will defend the United States against all comers and not to fight with anyone against the United States? I think that just might concentrate your mind a bit and is a fairly obvious oath to have to take when you are building a new nation from others. We don't have that kind of oath in the UK I don't think, so probably mistakenly take it for granted that old or new citizens will do the first and not the last, sadly some of our newcomers are not doing the first but are doing the second quite enthusiastically.

I recognise this argument and have heard it all before, actually you could not be further from the truth my cultural pessimistic friend. The cultures in different European countries was very different but being that when Irish and Italians came en mass to the USA they were classed as badly as blacks and see they had some of the most absurd stereotypes that you see formulated today with other ethnic groups. In fact the arguments you used were once used against those who came to America. This is not forgetting the fact there were also many Blacks and Asians in the form of Chinese, let alone the indigenous, so your point is rather moot to say the least Flix. The reality is they went through the same situations but multiplied ten fold and dealt with the same prejudice and stereotypes that you form today of ethnic groups. So again what civil war happened with mass immigration to the States in the late 19th century where the same fears and loathing existed?

None

What are you on about a civil war for?
I know stuff happened in America with different groups but all I am saying is that its easier to accommodate and be accommodated in a place that is new and still developing as with America even up to the earlier part of the last century than a place that has a long history and a particular foundation and customs that have been built on and has progressed in the same vein to give people more rights and freedoms that people understand and live by even today, most don't want to let that go and change out of all recognition, they don't want to become a different society and nation, they prefer to keep progressing, they certainly don't want to go backwards as with some sections wanting blasphemy laws re introduced or new laws introduced against insulting religions etc. You've said before about education being the key unfortunately that doesn't seem to be going as well as you think, now we have modern western educated people embracing medieval religious practices and customs and expecting to be allowed to carry on living that way and in some cases flouting the law of this land, surely anyone coming here for a better life must understand the law of this land is paramount to anything they knew or believed before and to any religion.

Vintage wrote:What are you on about a civil war for?
Follow the thread what was being stated

I know stuff happened in America with different groups but all I am saying is that its easier to accommodate and be accommodated in a place that is new and still developing as with America even up to the earlier part of the last century than a place that has a long history and a particular foundation and customs that have been built on and has progressed in the same vein to give people more rights and freedoms that people understand and live by even today, most don't want to let that go and change out of all recognition, they don't want to become a different society and nation, they prefer to keep progressing, they certainly don't want to go backwards as with some sections wanting blasphemy laws re introduced or new laws introduced against insulting religions etc. You've said before about education being the key unfortunately that doesn't seem to be going as well as you think, now we have modern western educated people embracing medieval religious practices and customs and expecting to be allowed to carry on living that way and in some cases flouting the law of this land, surely anyone coming here for a better life must understand the law of this land is paramount to anything they knew or believed before and to any religion.

You still have this wrong and your perception of history is wrong, I suggest you research further into how each immigrant groups were treated in America in the late 19th century and early 20th century, you seem to think it was different from today, it was not, many were seen as alien with their cultures. The reality is badly people form bad prototypes of people because of certain criminal acts that happen within some cultures, feeling the need to condemn all from a group with fear.

I shall leave you with this to help you understand the perception at the time of Irish immigrants, it may help show you that what you say now was no different to back then





In the nineteenth century, Americans saw Irish people very differently than we might today. Large numbers of Catholic Irish began arriving in the US in the 1850s—numbers in the millions, driven from Ireland by poverty and famine. These immigrants were typically very poor, unskilled, and illiterate. Significant numbers spoke little or no English. The United States was predominantly a Protestant country, and native whites often saw the Irish Catholics as a danger.

In these cartoons we can see many of the stereotypes of the irishman of the 1800s--the association with drink, but also a flat nose, pronounced mouth and lips, low forehead, and general air of brutishness.

In these cartoons, Irish immigrants are shown as ape-like or as racially different. Americans in the mid 1800s were just beginning to consider the theory of evolution. Scientists argued that "facial angle" was a sign of intelligence and character. When they studied the "physiognomy" or facial structure, or Irishmen, they detected animalistic qualities. James Redfield's 1852 book Comparative physiognomy; or, Resemblances between men and animals saw Irishmen as dog-like. Redfield mixes claims to science with claims that the Irshman's dog-like character makes him cowardly and cruel.

It's important to point out that caricatures of immigrants were common. Germans were stereotyped in beer halls; Chinese immigrants were mocked in caricatures and cartoons; African Americans were almost constantly the subject of demeaning comic stereotypes. The point is not that Irish people suffered more or less than any other group: rather, the remarkable thing is how differently irish people were seen. No one today thinks of Irish people as "not white"or "racially primitive" in some ways, irish people seem sort of "hyper-white."

Irish Americans and African Americans shared many of the same jobs—the low paying, low status jobs native whites avoided. Some historians have pointed out that tap dancing, at which African Americans have excelled, has its roots in irish dancing, which empahsizes minimal upper body movement and elaborate rhythmic footwork. The predominance of Irish surnames among African Americans points out how much the two groups shared.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/19thcentury/alienmenace/assignment.php

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:How many countries have broken apart in civil war because they have been forced together?

Britain's multicultural society was working nicely, we were gently getting along - 30 years ago we were beginning to work together.

Then Blair forced millions on us in a matter of a few years - forced - that's the problem.

Yes please do tell on civil wars?

Am all ears to this view

You do understand that America had mass immigration in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, did a civil war happen because of this Andy?


I think you need to look closer at why Civil wars do happen

Sunnis and Shias all get along well together of course! No civil wars in the countries where they live together? Also, India/Pakistan springs to mind (Hindu/Muslim) , Chechens etc..... Probably loads more but I haven't googled it.

thank you vintage, at least you know what I'm getting at> I'm trying to say we had too many come in such a short time giving us already here no time to absorb so many. we are only a small island.America has a much larger land mass for newcomers to spread out in.

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



Yes please do tell on civil wars?

Am all ears to this view

You do understand that America had mass immigration in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, did a civil war happen because of this Andy?


I think you need to look closer at why Civil wars do happen

Sunnis and Shias all get along well together of course!  No civil wars in the countries where they live together?  Also, India/Pakistan springs to mind (Hindu/Muslim) , Chechens etc..... Probably loads more but I haven't googled it.

Again what is the reasons behind these civil wars though Tess, was it through mass immigration?
No, these are feuds that in some cases have gone on for a very long time. Throughout European history when once Religion ruled, Catholics and Protestants were at each others throats and some still are today.
The point is these feuds formed from absurd prejudice views formed from each other.

nicko wrote:thank you vintage, at least you know what I'm getting at> I'm trying to say we had too many come in such a short time giving us already here no time to absorb so many. we are only a small island.America has a much larger land mass for newcomers to spread out in.

Nicko, I am all for controlled immigration and as seen uncontrolled immigration can and does lead to disharmony, hence why it does need controlling. What I dislike is poor prejudice arguments formed to view a fear of people which is no different to has been seen in the past. The sensible arguments on controlling immigration, will always be on the capacity in infrastructure and the limitations a nation has to accommodate so many people

Yes, Thank you I know, it has nothing to do with the point I am making though.